Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 82

I think most users think Dork is reliable source but the source is not included in Reliable Sources section. So I opened discussion for double-check.

Also, I think Official Charts is missing. (Here's the source what I found) I absoloutely think this source is a reliable source too.

And I want to ask y'all if y'all think these sources are reliable too or not.

1. The Music: Random article / Advertise Us.

As this source supports advertisement, so first of all I don't think it's a reliable source.

2. Headline Planet: Random article / Privacy & Cookie Policy

Headline Planet developed the following policy to demonstrate its firm commitment to user data protection, privacy and security. The information below illustrates the privacy policy followed by the Headline Planet website and wholly managed engagement platforms like e-mail. It does not cover engagement that takes place on (and is managed by) external networks, such as Google AMP, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and Instagram.
The following policy is effective as of May 24, 2018. Inquiries or applicable opt-out requests may be submitted to info[at]headlineplanet[dot]com.

I'm pretty obscure on this source. First of all, the source doesn't indicate an advertisement thing, so I think it may be reliable. Checked it is marked as unreliable source.

3. Daily Record: About Us.

dailyrecord.co.uk is the online edition of The Daily Record, one of Scotland's most trusted news brands.

We expect our staff to use their best endeavours to verify the stories being put forward for publication.

Seems reliable, but other editors' opinions are needed.

4. FEMMUSIC Magazine: Random article, Privacy Policy, Submissons.

I can't check "About Us" page, seems not exist.

5. Attitude: About Us.

No advertisement, and they say: Attitude’s writers and columnists are professional journalists conversant with publishing law and both they, and our sub-editing team, make every effort to confirm – prior to publication – the accuracy of facts or quotations used in any and every story. Our writers must be precise with their words, headlines and cited URLs. They understand that words have power and act responsibly. In doing so, they must verify the information they gather. This includes identifying information such as names and positions, but also includes factual statements and accounts. Our writers conduct their own fact-checking using their own judgment guided by our ethics policy. We will use fact checkers in circumstances we believe warrant doing so. seems reliable; but opinions are needed.

6. Out: About Us. Subscribe to Out in print - Get Out / The Advocate flipbook magazine delivered to your home. Subscribe today! seems print magazine, so reliable?

7. Hot Press

8. Mystic Sons: Random article

In contact page, they stated:

Mystic Sons strive to discover and source new and fresh musical talent from all over the world.

Our contributors are like-minded individuals who share the same vision and ethos of promoting groundbreaking new music to the masses.

Every musician/band needs support and we can provide that extra push to ensure your music is recognised and appreciated worldwide. Everything that is sent to us will be listened to, so get in touch to find out more about our Music Promotion through PR, Events and Editorial.

Please see individual roles and address any correspondence to the correct staff member.

Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Dork is a print magazine and I'd consider that reliable. Official Charts is a WP:GOODCHART, I just don't think there's an official list maintained of those, only the deprecated charts.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Why don't we add OCC too? Because Billboard is also good chart and is included in here. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we could. I'd bring it up on that talk page--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding OCC. I assume the only reason its never been added is because its always been used without any good faith contention on its reliability. 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC) Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. I don't know what to put on Genre section, so I wrote "All genres" in there. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 16:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The Music began in 1990 as a print magazine, which would usually indicate reliability, but that "Advertise Us" page does not look very promising. Skyshiftertalk 16:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

By the way, does "Advertise" always make sources unreliable? I'm not sure, but many people seem to regard if adevrtisement function exists, they think sources as unreliable source. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 05:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Not always, but it is a point to consider. Especially if the website doesn't declare what is an advertisement and what isn't. Skyshiftertalk 18:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip; but then what state should we remain for The Music? Do you have any recommendation? I'll follow your instruction and add the source. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment on Hot Press: this discussion identified Hot Press as reliable because Metacritic uses it. However, this post notes that some the reviews included by aggregators aren't reliable. That's said, Hot Press must be reliable; I just don't yet know how to explain this concretely :). this article praises Hot Press. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment on Attitude: Editor-in-chief Cliff Joannou contributed to rolling stoneUK; content editor Jamie Tabberer contributed toindependent, both of which are considered to be reliable by Wikipedia. I think Attitude is reliable. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Per the archives, print mags (or websites that double as print mags) tend to be considered reliable. Rock City Boy (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

There are upward of a thousand uses of Gigwise across Wikipedia. It was once a strictly music-centric site, but has in recent times reinvented itself as a kind of celebrity webzine with a music section. Does the community find it to be a reliable source? Thanks. Paulie302 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I believe its been discussed before, and is considered a reliable source. I believe I used it without issue in the past. They've got an established editorial team, with a lot of members that are professional and college educated in areas like music theory, cultural studies, the arts, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah right, sorry. Didn't see a discussion on this talk page, or a link to a discussion on the WP:RSMUSIC one. I was leaning toward reliable, since a lot of the music contributors have written for other noted online zines. Paulie302 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I didn't mean it as a "you should have known better" type thing, I just meant it as more of a "I don't think I was the only one who felt this way" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Some of the names listed at the Gigwise Wikipedia page are very well-credentialed. Paulie302 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Gigwise seems to have published AI-generated content. For instance, this article and this article (both being written by Casey Monroe within the last few months) seem to prominently feature AI-generated text, as confirmed through online detectors. Should the usage of Gigwise be given some sort of stipulation in light of this? Leafy46 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. Via the Web Archive, I can see that the old, music-oriented Gigwise was reduced to a husk by September 2023. Some shady stuff started happening to the site during 2024: it was taken offline (and declared a former site by Wikipedia), resurfaced as a page headed 'Rear of the Year', then became a buzzword-heavy landing page for some "solutions" firm called Études, and then finally morphed into its current "Glam, Gossip, Groves" form. I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of the site is now written by AI, as it absolutely does not appear to be in the hands of the people who ran it pre-2024. If we decide that Gigwise is reliable (I believe the old site was); we should probably stipulate that no post-2023 articles are to be used as references. Paulie302 (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Update: Nothing has been posted on Gigwise's Twitter or Facebook pages since late 2023. All the staff photos on the current site look AI-generated. This one very clearly is (look at the hands): . It would appear that Gigwise closed in early 2024 and the domain was taken over by some sketchy, AI-driven outfit. Paulie302 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

This is some stellar sleuthing! I completely agree with the course of action proposed here, given that Gigwise otherwise seemed to be a fairly reliable source. Leafy46 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Any final comments on using the old/real Gigwise (2001–2023) as a source? Paulie302 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Per the archives, print mags (or websites that double as print mags) tend to be considered reliable. Rock City Boy (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources to this stub. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's another album stub, unsourced for tears, to add references. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Unless there's an issue I'm unaware of, could we get Flood Magazine added to the "generally reliable" list? It's a Los Angeles-based website/magazine that has printed 12 physical issues since 2015. They have no apparent formal scale for reviews. Just looking at a few of the authors and notable people they've interviewed on Flood:

• Lily Moayeri
  • Interviewed: Christine and the Queens, Brett Anderson, Martin Gore, Liam Gallagher
  • Has also written for: Billboard, Rolling Stone
• Dan Epstein
  • Interviewed: Paul Weller, Jerry Harrison, Wayne Coyne, Dave Davies
  • Has also written for: Rolling Stone, Revolver
• A.D. Amorosi
  • Interviewed: Ringo Starr, Mark Mothersbaugh, Zak Starkey, Kid Congo Powers
  • Has also written for: Variety, JazzTimes

Here is a past discussion: . Fundgy (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I concur. For what it's worth, nobody has raised concerns about its reliability at FAC or GA (Weird Faith and Blood on the Silver Screen). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree with the above assessment; Flood Magazine doesn't seem raise any red flags and would add it to the list reliable sources. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I've seen that laut.de is often overlooked in album articles, even for underrepresented releases like Deathconsciousness and Velocity : Design : Comfort. I think it's a reliable source, but I wanted to double-check before continuing to add it. Cattos^💭 00:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm kinda mixed on it, but leaning towards it being okay. I can't seem to find a clear editorial policy anywhere on their website, but they list an editor-in-chief and various editors. They also have a list of authors, meaning that the reviews from this source seems to satisfy the basic requirements of WP:A/S. However, I will abstain from making comments about this website's News section, given that I don't know this publication's reputation for fact checking, and since I can't tell if the writing is at a professional level or if it's more akin to a tabloid. Additionally, the site's artist biographies are unattributed, and thus I can't comment on the reliability of those; one was used in a featured article before without issue (Viking metal, its FA discussion), however it may have been used as a "last resort" of sorts when an English-language source wasn't available (in line with WP:NONENG).

TL;DR laut.de should be fine, but I'd exercise caution regarding its News section (out of caution more than because of a clear problem), and would definitely not suggest using it over an English source if possible. Leafy46 (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

this 2014 discussion considered it to be a serviceable publications, especially if an album/band get little attention from other publications, but it would've been WP:UNDUE weight to source a genre for The Hunting Party (album) solely from laut.de. BUT, I think undue weight can be applied to most of the under top 10 publications, and I would say it may be added to WP:A/S. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that it wasn't on the sources list already, because of that 2014 discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 21:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I've used it in quite a bunch of articles, mostly focusing on German bands. Its reviews have been helpful in justifying the content of "genre" parameters and writing "Musical style" and "Critical reception" sections. I wouldn't give it too much weight when other options are available, either, especially if referring to non-German acts. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 13:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pop 2 (mixtape) § Splitting proposal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This discussion is a proposal to split the background section into a separate article. Rosaece (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Rosaece (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I would advocate for this print magazine's (possibly belated) inclusion at WP:RSMUSIC. It has been around for well over a decade, and is used hundreds of times as a source across Wikipedia. CP has a pretty stellar cast of writers; besides those listed at the mag's Wiki article, experienced critics like Jeremy Allen, Simon Harper, Jon O'Brien, Steve O'Brien and Paul Kirkley stand as regular contributors. Paulie302 (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

After a quiet week here, I had a search through the archives for any Classic Pop advocacy. Alas, the seemingly retired User:Richard3120 (still this page's second most-prolific editor, after User:Sergecross73) previously declared that the magazine has "editorial control and well known and respected journalists", and should "be considered reliable". The viewpoints of regulars Sergecross73, User:3family6 and User:Leafy46 would definitely be valued. Thanks. Paulie302 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable - agree with the above. Credentialed, experienced writers, established staff and editorial oversight, print mag. I see no problems here (other than hoping a print mag about 80s pop is sustainable in 2025. But that's just a personal concern.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Reliable - per the above rationales--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable - Looks good, no red flags as far as I can tell and per the above (especially since it does printed copies). Leafy46 (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The article Brett Anderson Live at Queen Elizabeth Hall has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 11 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Literally sold 1,500 copies.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Was looking for sourcing for C'mon Take on Me, which as is should be redirected to the band's page as the article shows no evidence of notability. However, in doing my due diligence before redirecting, I was able to turn up two reviews from The Rockpit and Sleaze Roxx. I've heard of both sites, but don't have much experience with either and don't know if their reviews are considered reliable, so I'm coming here for judgment. Both sites are used hundreds of times on WP, including in numerous album articles (though not necessarily for their reviews specifically), but that's never a guarantee, and neither have been brought up before in this project so it seems like basically an open question. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The Rockpit has an editor-in-chief and a writing staff per this page on their site, so it meets the minimum requirement for a website to be labeled as reliable per WP:A/S. Various good articles also use it as a source, including as recently as December 2024 in The Weight of the Mask. Thus, I'd consider this one seems reasonably reliable, even if it isn't necessarily a "high quality" source.

In contrast, Sleaze Roxx has no mention of their editorial or writing staff on their website, as far as I can tell; this article suggests that they, at least at one point, had an editor, but whether or not they still have one is unclear. Sleaze Roxx is used as a source on the featured articles Metallica and Megadeth, however both of those references were added after their FA promotions in 2008 and 2014, respectively. I'm leaning towards no on this one, unless someone else can find their editorial/writing team somewhere on their site. Leafy46 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Black Holes and Revelations has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

King of Pop (album) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I am once again asking for assistance on the featured article candidacy on this album. I am doing everything I can to get this promoted, but I am running out of time to get reviewers. So far, I only have a media review and one reviewer who opposed, but whose concerns I have responded to (they have not been around to respond at the time of writing this). I would appreciate any and all feedback you can give. It can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains (album)/archive2. mftp dan ^oops 04:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gangs of Wasseypur: Part I (soundtrack)#Requested move 6 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TiggerJay (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Is Showbiz Cheat Sheet reliable? They have a an about page with their team. (See https://www.cheatsheet.com/about/) Newtatoryd222 (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This has already been discussed over at RSN here. That discussion, in essence, concluded that cheatsheet.com is a poor-quality source due to its "coverage lean[ing] toward rumors and speculation" (with respects to WP:NOTGOSSIP), and that it shouldn't be used over the articles which the site is often found summarizing (assuming that those original articles are from a reliable source). I also have no reason to suspect that anything has changed from this 2019 discussion, having given a look at a sample of their current articles. Leafy46 (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The article Balearic Beauty has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 10 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No reliable sources on Google. No hits on Google News; all hits are about different things, such as Ibiza or an Australian beauty supply company.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey all. I'm reviewing Talk:Deathconsciousness/GA1 and the page is currently using Rate Your Music as a source, which is considered unreliable at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. However, the source in question here is an interview RYM did with the creators of the album (Have a Nice Life). Even though it's an unreliable source, would the usage here be acceptable? To clarify, it's being used not for the score or genre of the album, but strictly for an interview conducted with teh album's creators. Thanks. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe, generally speaking, that could be rationalized as usable as long as its in compliance with WP:PRIMARY. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate it, thanks! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 42 (Coldplay song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/42 (Coldplay song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Band_Aid_(band)_(2nd_nomination). Popcornfud (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

What's the consensus on Substream Magazine? https://substreammagazine.com/ Newtatoryd222 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It would help if you shared what evidence you've found of reliability or lack thereof. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Substream doesn't seem to have been discussed previously except in passing, so no consensus as of yet. A cursory review raises some red flags:

• No mention of any editorial practices or editorial staff
• There are apparently no credentials or qualifications necessary to be considered for a writing position; anyone who submits several writing samples is eligible
• One information page contains the typo studnets, indicating a lack of even basic copyediting
• The website was designed using Wordpress

Given all the above, I would caution against citing Substream as a source. LifeofTau 21:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

This is strange: looking at their reviews, they tend to display the five-star system, but often times they leave it grey even though they do actually give them a score within the article. See here: a blank rating at the top yet a 4/5 at the bottom. Many articles have this glaring issue, with others having separate problems of double spaces, inconsistent paragraph spacing, etc, all things that any editor that does anything more than just copy-and-paste from who-knows-where would solve rather quickly. These are all nitpicks, mind you, but I feel they add up.

They say that they've made in-print versions before and that they've been around since 2007, though most recent articles appear to be written by "Staff" or by a small handful of writers, none of whom I recognize. Unless there's actually some notability to the specific author, I would have to ditto the above by Tau. Fundgy (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm bringing this question here, as the Christian music sources list doesn't get many eyes on it, if any other than myself. Currently, that Sources list includes the site No Life Til Metal! by Scott Waters (from the band Ultimatum) as an expert self-published source from 2013 onward, because that is when he wrote a bunch of review articles for HM. It's actually, as I discovered today, a bit earlier: He wrote an article not about him or Ultimatum in 1999, and then began contributing in 2012 as well as 2013 (credits list: , ). So, I don't think listing 2012 as a start date for him as a self-published expert is that controversial. My question is more regarding the following. Him and Ultimatum also operated a fanzine, The Ultimatum Metal Mag. Obviously, not a reliable source for supporting notability claims regarding Ultimatum, yes. It did have writers such as Steve Rowe of Mortification, who regularly wrote for HM, and Alex Cantwell of HM and Chronicles of Chaos (contemporaneously with his contributions to Ultimatum Metal Magazine). My questions are 1) is Ultimatum Metal Magazine a reliable source for notability and other third-party statements about bands and topics that aren't associated with Ultimatum? and 2) would Water's earlier work operating this magazine (which, to be clear, wasn't just promoting the band but delved into other metal artists) count as journalism expertise earlier than 1999/2012?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Article in question: Stumpwork (album) - (brace for the artwork, BTW, for the easily nauseated)

I've done a ton of work on this article, but I've never been involved in GA assessments in any capacity before, so I just wanna ask if anyone here thinks if it's at a point where I should nominate it. Thanks! Fundgy (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fundgy, I think you are more than ready—nice work on structuring the "critical reception" section. I would add that GA people like to mention all the infobox genres at the top of the "compositions" (your "themes" section). And to move the citation out of infobox into the body. Additionally, observers have likened ---> critics have likened. Good luck! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree with all that, and I've done my best to change it, so I'll submit sometime soon. I understand that there's really no need to cite things twice as long as it's explained somewhere in prose. I've also restructured/rewritten things a bit so that there's now a "Composition" section with leads with the "style" subsection, where all the genres get mentioned within the first two sentences. Fundgy (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

As a related follow-up, I've just expanded the band's other album page, New Long Leg. I'm aiming to nominate this one for a GA too, but I'd be very grateful if anyone has the time to look over it first. Thanks, Fundgy (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vendetta! (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vendetta! (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The article Selos e borboletas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 12 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No reliable sources on Google. No hits on Google News. Hits on Google Books appear to refer to different things. No hit singles. Alternatively, redirect.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

A.k.a. https://cultfollowing.co.uk/

Months ago, when I was quite new to Wikipedia, I added an article from this source to a page, but I've since removed it because I noticed something quite glaring in hindsight. I can't find a single article that's not written by its "chief editor". Is this site essentially a glorified blog, subject to WP:BLOGS? I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on whether this should be listed under "generally unreliable", which is what I'm currently leaning towards. Around a few dozen articles on Wikipedia seem to use this source, so it's not unmanageable to deal with this if y'all view this as a problem. Thanks! Fundgy (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a SPS. Their Instagram says "Owned, run and written by @ewangleadow". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And I see no evidence that he's a subject matter expert. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have brought this up if it wasn't placed under Google's news tab when searching for reviews. Unfortunately, this serves to promote it to people to the point that editors have placed it in articles like Coles Corner (album) or The Car (album). Fundgy (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Added it to the list. Fundgy (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, got directed here from WP:RSN. I happened upon an article that seems to hard to read, per MOS:LEADCITE / WP:OVERCITE. The lede is dense:

Avery Friedman is a Brooklyn-based[4][5] musician and singer-songwriter[6] from Cleveland, Ohio.[7] Her lineup includes James Chrisman (Sister. / CIAO MALZ) and Felix Walworth (Florist / Told Slant).[8][9] She released her debut album 'New Thing' via Audio Antihero[10][11] on April 18, 2025,[12][13][14] which received support from NPR Music's All Songs Considered,[15][16] The Line of Best Fit,[17] Under the Radar Magazine,[18] KEXP,[19][20] BBC Radio Scotland,[10][21] No Depression,[8][22] Hanif Abdurraqib,[23][24] New Noise Magazine,[6] KLOF Magazine,[12][25] WFUV,[26][27] WNYU,[28][29][30] Rockerilla,[31] FM4,[32] Out Front,[33] Spotify,[34][35][36] and others.[37][38][39]

There are 185 sources total. Here's my clumsy attempt to count the publications:

I see New Noise, NPR, Stereogum, and Paste on the reliable list. I verified the Stephen Thompson NPR quote as real, though that Template:Cite web probably should be converted into a Template:Cite podcast or Template:Cite AV media with a timestamp since it happens near the end of a podcast.

But there are still a lot of sources I don't recognize. Can some editors help? I don't know what's typical for a musical artist. Blepbob (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for overquoting, but it's to the point that the article is becoming mostly long quotes. Can someone somewhat familiar with the subject help out to trim all the unnecessaries? Fundgy (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a Hip Hop head, so keen to get some second opinions on this. There's currently an AFD taking place that has called into question the use of Our Generation Music as a reliable source. I've been unable to find any prior discussions in the archive.

It appears to have an editorial team and staff writers, but asking here in case there's anything glaringly obvious that I may be overlooking? The only red flag I have is their contact us page says they're open to sponsored content, but I haven't seen (yet) any content that is labelled as sponsored. Nil🥝 23:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Just noting also that OGM has been used as a source by NME, HotNewHipHop & Rap-Up who are all listed at WP:RSMUSIC. Nil🥝 23:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

To me, it looks like they're misunderstanding what a primary source is. Sources aren't "primary" because it's the "main" source. Fundgy (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

My question here is very simple: can staff-created Ultimate Guitar tabs/chords be used in the composition section for a song article, or when discussing that song in an album article, if given proper attribution?

To explain my reasoning for asking this: many featured articles for songs include what key, time signatures, and/or beats-per-minute that song is played in. Or, in the case of albums, include that information when discussing specific songs in the album. Sometimes, featured article candidates are asked to include this information (example: the FAC for "Mean" by Taylor Swift) if not already there. And while not in an FAC, I myself have been asked to include information like this (Talk:Blackened_(song)#GA_review). And I agree that, if verifiable and cited properly, the information should be included in the article. However, there are many cases where this is not possible (mainly due to the lack of officially published sheet music). To cite an example of my own for this, "The Foundations of Decay" is a fairly new song that has never had sheet music published for it. Nor have any reliable sources reported on this information. Therefore, it is impossible at present to cite things such as its key and beats-per-minute.

Enter Ultimate Guitar. In addition to publishing articles written by a staff team, they also publish tabs for thousands of songs on their website. We already consider Ultimate Guitar's staff-created content to be a reliable source. Obviously, while much of the tabs on Ultimate Guitar are user-generated, the ones created by Ultimate Guitar staff are designated as "Official", and these would be only ones allowed to be cited. Should citing Ultimate Guitar for stuff like this be allowed, it would obviously be with attribution as, in most cases, it is not officially published sheet music by the artist. To give an example of how I'd imagine this information be included in "The Foundations of Decay": "According to Ultimate Guitar staff, the song is played in the key of C-sharp minor at 75 beats-per-minute". Or something similar. And while this probably goes without saying, citing such information from Ultimate Guitar would only be acceptable in cases where official sheet music has not been published, and/or the songs basic composition information has not been reported by other reliable sources. Basically, only use it as a last resort. An issue to maybe take into account would be that accessing official tabs requires a subscription, but it's not like a subscription has prohibited what is or is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. Any thoughts? λ NegativeMP1 00:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you any information on their editorial process RE the tabs? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

No, but I can't imagine its any different than their already established editorial staff and their policies. The tabs are marked as staff-made, and the only staff team detailed on the site is the one that writes articles. Considering all of their editorial staff are also seemingly musicians, I can't imagine there wouldn't be significant overlap - if the two aren't flat out the same. Or at the very least, they'd undergo some oversight. I suppose this isn't officially detailed anywhere but the thought they'd operate completely independently of each other seems very unrealistic. Unless there's something that I'm missing here, as I'm not a user of the site. λ NegativeMP1 01:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm gonna say no here. Their news post regarding Official Tabs (link) notes that each song is "tabbed out by professional musicians", but there is no indication who these "professional musicians" are. At least in the case of sheet music released by music publishers, you can assume a general sense of reliability because it's a primary source; in this case, the credentials of the UG staff as journalists has no standing on their credentials as musicians or transcribers (assuming that they are one and the same). Leafy46 (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it was worth a shot. λ NegativeMP1 00:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed that Complex is listed as reliable on WP:A/S, when questions were raised about it at the (admittedly decidedly unmusical) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 472#Sophie Rain. Does this affect anything here?--Launchballer 17:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about Complex in that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello - I started a personal listening project seeking to listen to every album indexed on Wikipedia category pages (1973 album, 1988 albums, etc) from the 1970s and 1980s. I thought I was being systematic, but then I kept finding other artists/albums through YouTube or through mentions in other songs; every single time, this was a Black musical artist/act. Even in the cases where they had pages for the artist, there were no pages for the albums. I'm an academic reference librarian by trade, so to me, if something's not indexed, it functionally doesn't exist! I can't imagine that a more robust set of category pages for albums by year would be out of line with Wikipedia's goals, but when I made my first page today (for Latimore's debut album, Latimore), it was removed on the basis of not meeting notability guidelines by a user who uses a bot to make their edits (didn't even know you could do this on Wikipedia). I'd like to make sure I'm working in line with best practice lest I have this happen with every album. I am still reading up on best practices for this kind of thing, but I write here for advice on how to make sure my work has a better statistical likelihood of meeting a bot's standards. Thanks! Caseyroberson (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Casey. On Wikipedia, we only write articles about notable topics. For albums, the relevant guideline is WP:NALBUM. An album is generally only notable if it has received several reviews in reliable sources, such as newspapers or magazines. Unless those exist, the proper thing to do is to create a redirect to the article about the band/artist, not create an article. Also, your article wasn't removed by a bot; it was redirected to another article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Generally, you should add those sources to the article via prose and citations. If you don't do that, an editor is likely to move your article to a draft until it has sources demonstrating that it is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! My plan is to add some more pages to fill out the blank categories I added on the article too, per your other edit. Caseyroberson (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is determine if this article is actually notable, and if it isn't, restore the redirect to the article about the musician. There's no rush to create more articles before you get the hang of writing just one. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

For reference, WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES is a list of sources deemed reliable by the community. It is not exhaustive, merely a list of sources vetted by the community as being reliable. For the eras you are working with, though, newspapers and magazines are probably going to be more helpful.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 01:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. The notification I got said that the page was reviewed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DannyS712_bot_III

So if that doesn't mean a bot did it...? Caseyroberson (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The bot marked the redirect as reviewed. See WP:NPP. The bot has nothing to do with another editor asserting that the page is not notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

King Kong (2005 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The album cover depicts the title as Nat "King" Cole & Me, but while some references use the form in quotes, other references do not use the quotes. WikiProject members may wish to join the discussion at Talk:Nat King Cole & Me#Requested move 5 September 2025. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Ocean of Sound has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. czar 01:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuarto azul, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 09:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The article Canta en Italiano (Daniela Romo EP) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 8 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No evidence exists that it charted. No reliable sources exist; all Google hits are either copyright violations of the lyrics or about different LPs by other artists.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we shouldn't use the Irish magazine Hot Press as a music source? I'm a bit surprised it's not on the generally reliable list already, considering how it's been around since the 70s and nothing appears to be giving any red flags. Fundgy (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I have used it in articles. Must admit, I thought it was listed as an RS. Agreed to adding. ResonantDis_tortion 06:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I have used it before too and consider it reliable. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 12:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Certainly should be included. The sources list is by no means exhaustive.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Include: I couldn't locate their editorial team (the team's quality usually used as arguments for inclusion). (1) Their early stuff included notable Irish journalists Declan Lynch and Liam Fay, the latter has contributed to Sunday Times Ireland. (2) Hot Press is a print magazine, and there is an opinion that print magazines are usually reliable unless otherwise proven. These aren't the strongest arguments, but I don't reasons to not include it. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Adding it. I'm assuming their normal coverage is generally limited to popular music. The online reviews go by a 10 point scale, but I don't know if the in-print version differs. Fundgy (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Definitely reliable. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The article Dadaruhi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 12 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. The Turkish language article has no sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)